Dr. Ranjeet Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6103 of 2025

Dr. Ranjeet Kumar	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Noor Muhammad, Srivastava	Yogesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 72

¶5

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Yogesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no.196 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation of receiving money on the false promise of securing a Job in the Army. It is further submitted that applicant is said to have the applicant is a Doctor and is said to have assigned the role of medical fitness to the first informant, but before the medical fitness could have been given, the co-accused were arrested in the case. It is further submitted that there is no monetary transaction with the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is assigned the role that he promised to issue medical certificate to the first informant, but before the said medical certificate could have been issued, the co-accused was arrested. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or

¶9

NABAIL No. 6103 of 2025

¶10

2

¶11

Court and in case he is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that the applicant is not cooperating in investigation and details of bank account could not be obtained by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that investigation is still under progress.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedents of the accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and the exact role of accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶15

Considering all attending facts and circumstances of the case, settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and without expressing any opinion on merits, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant Dr. Ranjeet Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C./193(3) BNSS with the following conditions :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the trial Court on the date fixed unless exempted by the Court concerned;

¶19

NABAIL No. 6103 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicant would co-operate during trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶24

In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶25

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶26

November 25, 2025

¶27

A.N. Mishra

¶28

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ranjeet Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sankalp Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajiv and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay and Another vs State of U.P.

Shamsher vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Dubey @ Manju Upadhyaya vs State of U.P.